header-logo header-logo

03 March 2016
Issue: 7689 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

No pay for McKenzie Friends

Legal profession welcomes ban on payment for controversial non-lawyers

Lawyers have welcomed proposals to ban McKenzie Friends from charging fees for their services.

The Judicial Executive Board (JEB) has proposed substantial reform for McKenzie Friends, non-lawyers who offer assistance or appear as advocates on behalf of litigants in person. The number of both litigants in person and McKenzie Friends has risen sharply in number in recent years, partly due to cutbacks in legal aid.

JEB proposes replacing existing guidance with rules of court, introducing a code of conduct requiring McKenzie Friends to acknowledge a duty to the court and a duty of confidentiality, and prohibiting them from charging fees.

It also hopes to provide further protection for litigants in person by requiring them to inform courts in advance that they intend to use a McKenzie Friend and providing information about the Friend.

Chantal-Aimée Doerries QC, Chairman of the Bar, says: “McKenzie friends are unregulated, uninsured and mostly unqualified, and the Bar Council agrees that they should not be allowed to charge people for legal services.

“An unfortunate consequence of legal aid cuts is that paid McKenzie Friends, who are not regulated or insured and are rarely legally qualified, have been charging up to £90 an hour to represent people in court. We have already seen one McKenzie friend banned from court for intimidating witnesses and legal representatives, and another jailed for defrauding his clients.

“Unlike McKenzie Friends, barristers and solicitors are regulated and owe a duty to the court and in this way they serve the interests of justice and the public interest. Those who instruct a paid McKenzie Friend would be better off employing a junior barrister or solicitor. This is often more cost effective and will always represent better value for money.”

The proposals follow the recommendations of a judicial working group, chaired by Mrs Justice Asplin. JEB also intends to produce a plain language guide for litigants in person and McKenzie Friends.

Comments to the consultation, Reforming the courts’ approach to McKenzie Friends, should be submitted by 19 May to mckenzie.friends@judiciary.gsi.gov.uk.

Issue: 7689 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

International hospitality and leisure specialist joins corporate team as partner

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Firm appoints head of intellectual property to drive northern growth

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll